IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
d'best LAME for CBR256-320, any better LAME wich can provide 256-320kbit mp3 than 3.90.3 ?
ric-CZ
post Oct 2 2006, 21:07
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-October 06
Member No.: 35884



I'm using LAME 3.90.3 for encoding 256 kbit and 320kbit mp3s (joint stereo mode). I dont prefer VBR very much and want to get very high quality mp3s.
May I please ask if any of newer versions of LAME provides better quality output than 3.90.3 in CBR JS 256 or 320kbit ? It may be a silly question but Ive read that not every newer version of LAME gives better quality in every encoding mode/bitrate.
Well maybe there is a time to change my opinion about VBR too. I simply dont like VBR for not very precise time counting on some players, for a bit weaker error proof (drops) and also for worse ability to cut VBR mp3s.
So please if anyone can suggest me the better LAME than 3.90.3 for CBR 256 and 320kbit and better LAME for VBR 128~320kbit, if any.
Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jimhaddon
post Oct 2 2006, 21:51
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 22-July 03
Member No.: 7919



I think you'll find at that bitrate very little improvement as differences at that bitrate are near on impossible to spot, and mostly overkill.

You say you want 'high quality' mp3s. Have you actually ABX'd them and tried at a lower bitrate? I think you'll be surprised.

This post has been edited by jimhaddon: Oct 2 2006, 21:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 3 2006, 01:08
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 4854
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



What have you ABXed at 256k CBR w. 3.90.3? Any real songs or just problem samples?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ric-CZ
post Oct 3 2006, 10:22
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-October 06
Member No.: 35884



QUOTE (jimhaddon @ Oct 2 2006, 14:51) *
I think you'll find at that bitrate very little improvement as differences at that bitrate are near on impossible to spot, and mostly overkill.

You say you want 'high quality' mp3s. Have you actually ABX'd them and tried at a lower bitrate? I think you'll be surprised.


Im sorry but Im a bit newbie about LAME settings, did you mean ABR (average bitrate)? Ok, going to try these options -b 256 -m j -h --abr 200 -B 320. Do I risk any incompatibilty on older MP3 players if I use this ABR?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 3 2006, 11:55
Post #5


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Hang on ric-CZ. Lame v3.90.3 was recommended because of the tuned --alt-presets, but you're not using those.

So why not just use the latest recommended lame version with whichever bitrate you require (e.g. 320kbps CBR)?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....7516#entry74068

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 3 2006, 12:10
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



He didn't mean ABR; he asked if you could tell, by means of an ABX test, that later versions than 3.90.3 had lower quality - which they almost certainly won't.

As David said, you're just as well to use the latest recommended version, which is now 3.97, with your chosen CBR bitrate. cool.gif

I do, though, have a few criticisms of your proposed commandline:

QUOTE
-b 256 -m j -h --abr 200 -B 320


1. How can you have an ABR of 200 when you request a minimum bitrate of 256 and a maximum of 320? blink.gif
2. Joint stereo is used by default.
3. -h, and other "higher quality" settings, are rarely likely to be necessary or produce noticeable differences in sound quality.

This post has been edited by dv1989: Oct 3 2006, 12:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Oct 3 2006, 12:12
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



QUOTE (ric-CZ @ Oct 2 2006, 16:07) *
Well maybe there is a time to change my opinion about VBR too. I simply dont like VBR for not very precise time counting on some players, for a bit weaker error proof (drops) and also for worse ability to cut VBR mp3s.


Only broken players display incorrect time. Most modern players have no such issues.
VBR doesn't have any effect on errors, it won't really make it better or worse. Damaged files are something you should try to avoid, in any case.

And only broken tools have a problem with cutting VBR MP3s. There's several good tools on this forum that have no issues with VBR MP3s. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
odyssey
post Oct 3 2006, 13:38
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18-May 03
From: Denmark
Member No.: 6695



QUOTE (ric-CZ @ Oct 2 2006, 22:07) *
I'm using LAME 3.90.3 for encoding 256 kbit and 320kbit mp3s (joint stereo mode). I dont prefer VBR very much and want to get very high quality mp3s.
May I please ask if any of newer versions of LAME provides better quality output than 3.90.3 in CBR JS 256 or 320kbit ? It may be a silly question but Ive read that not every newer version of LAME gives better quality in every encoding mode/bitrate.
Well maybe there is a time to change my opinion about VBR too. I simply dont like VBR for not very precise time counting on some players, for a bit weaker error proof (drops) and also for worse ability to cut VBR mp3s.
So please if anyone can suggest me the better LAME than 3.90.3 for CBR 256 and 320kbit and better LAME for VBR 128~320kbit, if any.
Thank you.

You may experience bad timing if the mp3's are broken. Fix them with foobar or any other standalone VBR header fixer. If your problem persist on older players, you could try to fix the bitrate to the lowest possible CBR with mp3repacker.

I however, think you should take a look on the latest lame 3.97 with --preset fast extreme. fast is actually a bit confusing, since many (including me) relates fast to poor quality, but fast activates the new improved (quality wise) vbr-encoder, and extreme is quality 0, which aims for the best possible quality using vbr, instead of a given bitrate.

I was using almost the exact same settings as you until I realised that I was better off with these wink.gif


--------------------
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ddrawley
post Oct 3 2006, 14:03
Post #9





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 351
Joined: 10-November 02
Member No.: 3749



This link is for the recommended compile, and includes recommended settings. Very smart people have created this. Based on your statement that you are a newbie, I suggest you follow the recommendations.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ric-CZ
post Oct 3 2006, 14:23
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-October 06
Member No.: 35884



thank you very much guys!

sorry dv1989, like i wrote - im not very experienced with using ABR settings. this was just a try.

to odyssey: im going to try 3.97 with --preset fast extreme as you suggested. im glad someone has been using similar CBR settings too, so you surely know why you changed lame settings to those you recomended me.

also going to have a look at those compiles http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles

again: Thank to all of you ppl!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 3 2006, 14:25
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



Have fun! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
navin
post Oct 4 2006, 08:30
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: 27-May 05
Member No.: 22324



QUOTE (jimhaddon @ Oct 3 2006, 02:21) *
I think you'll find at that bitrate very little improvement as differences at that bitrate are near on impossible to spot, and mostly overkill.

You say you want 'high quality' mp3s. Have you actually ABX'd them and tried at a lower bitrate? I think you'll be surprised.


I used Wack, EAC, Lame 3.96.1 and WavPak 4.2 to create 2 sets of my CDs.
The Lame settings were as follows
ARGUMENTS=--preset extreme --id3v2-only --pad-id3v2 --ignore-tag-errors --scale %x --ta "%a" --tl "%g" --tn "%n" --tt "%t" --ty "%y" --tg "%m" %s %d
The WavPack setting were as follows
ARGUMENTS=-hm -w "Artist=%a" -w "Album=%g" -w "Track=%n" -w "Title=%t" -w "Year=%y" -w "Genre=%m" %s %d

I ABXed the 2 across several albums/songs and was able to tell the difference quite easily. Is that expected. I dont really know what these settings mean. Someone else on this forum gave them to me about a year ago and I just went with his/her advice.

It is experiences like this (at the time and trouble I had ripping all my CDs) that makes me wish I had ripped the CDs uncompressed (but tagged).

This post has been edited by navin: Oct 4 2006, 08:30
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 4 2006, 10:57
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



You probably ABXed them easily because of the
CODE
--scale %x
in your LAME command line, which will alter the resulting MP3s' volumes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 05:30